Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances

High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Expert Committee's Opinion on Revised Answer Key

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, May 29, 2023: In a recent judgment, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an appeal challenging the opinion of an expert committee regarding the revised answer key for a recruitment examination conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC). The appellant, Monu, had filed the appeal after his writ petition was dismissed by the court.

The appellant had applied for the position of Clerk in response to an advertisement issued by the HSSC in 2015. After appearing in the written examination in 2016 and securing 152 marks, the appellant was called for an interview. However, due to a query raised by another candidate regarding the correctness of an answer in the model answer key, the expert committee reviewed the matter and revised the answer key. Consequently, the appellant was not appointed to the position.

The appellant obtained the revised answer key through the Right to Information Act, 2005, and challenged the correctness of the answer to the disputed question. However, his efforts with the HSSC did not yield any result, leading him to file a writ petition before the High Court.

The Single Judge, after examining the matter and considering the respondent's response, held that the court cannot question the correctness of the expert committee's opinion. The Single Judge further noted that the change in the answer applied to all candidates and that the appellant had approached the court after a significant delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Shanker Jha (Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Palli, upheld the decision of the Single Judge. The Division Bench referred to Supreme Court precedents that emphasized that once a matter has been examined by experts, the court is not required to question the correctness of their opinion. In this case, an expert committee had examined the correctness of the disputed answer and revised the answer key accordingly.

Considering the timeline of events, the Division Bench concluded that taking up the issue at this stage would not serve any meaningful purpose. The advertisement was issued in 2015, the examination was held in 2016, the result was published in 2017, and the revised result was declared in 2018, with selections from the select list already made.

The appeal was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of by the court.

Date of decision : 25.05.2023

Monu vs Haryana Staff Selection Commissio

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/25-May-2023-Monu-vs-Haryana-Staff-Selc-P^0H.pdf"]

Latest Legal News